GRMChap05edits.docx Past Paper PDF

PART TWO: JUDGING ARGUMENTS 5 DEFINITIONS: Saying What You Mean Good arguments must also be clear, precise and well-defined. This raises some complex issues, for many attempts at arguing do not use words, sentences, punctuation, pictures, sounds, and other elements in a way that makes their meani...

PART TWO: JUDGING ARGUMENTS 5 DEFINITIONS: Saying What You Mean Good arguments must also be clear, precise and well-defined. This raises some complex issues, for many attempts at arguing do not use words, sentences, punctuation, pictures, sounds, and other elements in a way that makes their meaning clear. In this book, our aim is to teach you how to judge the strength of arguments. As we have already said, strong arguments contain acceptable premises and valid inferences. When arguments are not clear, meaningful, and easily understood, this can be difficult to determine because it is difficult to understand what arguers are claiming. In some cases, questions about the way a term or concept is used raises questions about the acceptability of a premise or the extent to which a conclusion has been adequately supported. In view of this, our account of argument evaluation begins with a discussion of meaning and some of the issues that arguments raise in this regard. Questions of meaning are a normal part of arguing. You have probably been interrupted in the course of some argument by someone who asked you to clarify something you said. The point or term that they find obscure may have seemed perfectly clear to you. When this occurs in conversation, it provides us with an opportunity to explain ourselves. Problems of meaning are more acute when we try to communicate in writing. In an ongoing exchange, we may have a second chance to clarify our meaning, but there will be many cases in which we have only one opportunity to convey what we mean. This makes it especially important to communicate clearly and precisely when you present an argument. This chapter explains some common problems with meaning when we argue. You need to avoid these problems when you are constructing arguments (especially written arguments) and be able to recognize them when you analyze and criticize other people's reasoning. In most cases, defining important terms is the best way to make meanings clear. The ability to construct and evaluate definitions is, therefore, a crucial skill in the good reasoner's repertoire. This is especially important in disputes about the way in which some term, concept, or idea should be defined. With this in mind, we have made definitions a central topic in this chapter. \1 Making Meanings Clear Human cloning is an important issue. Imagine that someone sitting across the table from you declares that human cloning is wrong because it "contravenes the most fundamental requirements of reverence in dealing with human life." You decide to evaluate this argument. As you know from our earlier discussion of the criteria for strong argument, your evaluation depends on the answer to the question whether the premise---"human cloning contravenes the most fundamental requirements of reverence in dealing with human life"---is acceptable, and a good reason for concluding "Human cloning is wrong." In order to decide whether a premise is acceptable, we must understand what it means. To this end, we must be sure we understand the different terms and phrases (and possibly pictures and other elements) it includes. In the case in question, this means that you need to ask what is meant by "the fundamental requirements of reverence" and, more basically, what is meant by "reverence." The answers to these questions may lie elsewhere in the comments of the arguer sitting across the table. We cannot evaluate whether a particular statement is a reasonable premise---or conclusion---in an argument if we cannot establish what it or one of the terms it contains means. When we attempt to establish meaning, we need to remember that this can change over time. Dictionaries are constantly updated because language is fluid and the meanings of words shift. New words are coined, old words acquire additional or altered meanings. Consider how the evolution of computers and AI have affected our language, introducing new terms like "Internet" and "smartphone" and "NLP" (natural language processing), and new meanings for old terms like "mouse," "web," "tweet," or "sandbox." Your grandparents may associate the word "wireless" with a radio, but you are not likely to do so. Keep in mind the fluid nature of language when you are reviewing the arguments of arguers from previous generations. Be careful not to impose the meanings that words have today. In contexts in which your own use of language might be misunderstood, you need to take steps to avoid this possibility. If you are using a term in an idiosyncratic way that does not correspond to a standard meaning of the term, you need to say so. If there are different uses of a term that need to be distinguished, you should make clear which one applies. If your use differs from that of an author you are quoting, you should note the distinction. In an August 6, 2020 CTV news report, then US president Donald Trump accused Canada of "dumping" aluminum products (selling them under their domestic price) and imposed new tariffs on Canada in response. In challenging this move, the president and CEO of Aluminum Association of Canada, Jean Simard, claimed that Canadian producers were not dumping aluminum but selling it at the current international price. "There's no dumping. It's a misuse of a word that is very well documented in international trade law. This is not dumping," Simard said. This usefully demonstrates how important the meaning of one word can be in a dispute---especially when its meaning is contested, or it is a word that carries significant emotional weight. \Euphemisms and Emotional Language **Euphemisms** substitute mild and indirect ways of speaking for more direct ways that might seem blunt and harsh. Many euphemistic words and phrases play an integral role in our ordinary vocabulary. In the interests of social grace or politeness, they function as inoffensive substitutes for coarse, harsh, or inelegant expressions. We say that someone "passed" instead of saying that the person "died." We do not say that a veterinarian "kills" a family pet but "puts it to sleep." Insofar as euphemisms soften a harsh reality, they may be appropriate, so long as they do not muddle an intended meaning. In arguments, euphemisms are a problem when they distort meaning. Political activists accuse politicians and the military of using intentionally misleading euphemisms to soften the images of weapons and their effects. Think of what is not being said when terms such as "collateral damage" are employed in describing the consequences of a military engagement. Or when the bombing of civilian marketplaces in Iraq is minimized as "an expression of sectarian differences" or when torture is called "enhanced interrogation technique." In arguing, the term "smart bomb" may be a way to promote a positive attitude to a bomb (for we admire things that are smart) and diminish the destruction it causes. The last decade has been characterized by significant upheavals and the movement of human populations in response to war and economic needs. In these circumstances, the treatments people receive may depend on the labels that are assigned to them. Are they "refugees" or "illegitimate migrants"? "Asylum seekers" or people trying to "jump the queue"? Those who dislike the term "migrant" insist that it refers to people who have freely decided to move, not to people compelled to move by some external factor. In the United States and Mexico, immigration authorities call migrant detention operations "rescues" and detention centers "*estaciones migratorias*" ("migrant stations"), though the conditions are similar to those in a prison. In cases such as these, a "preferred" term may dilute the meaning of what is actually at issue.   Other euphemisms include business terms like "casual labour," "downsizing" (sometimes called "rightsizing"), and "curtailing redundancies." Such terms are, critics argue, specifically designed to permit talk about important moral and social issues that does not acknowledgethe dire consequences they can have on employees who may be fired, and on part-time low-salary replacements who do not have employee benefits or job security. Novelist George Orwell famously expressed some of these sentiments in "Politics and the English language," where he wrote that "political language has to consist largely of euphemisms, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.... Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up \[disquieting\] mental pictures of them." In contrast to euphemism, which softens or neutralizes emotional content, ***emotional language*** consists of words or phrases infused with an emotional charge. In many cases, would-be arguers use such language when they indulge in hasty emotional responses to an issue instead of constructing careful arguments. When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that homosexuals must be included under Alberta's human rights legislation, a group calling itself Canada's Civilized Majority attacked the court's decision in a full-page advertisement in a national newspaper. The advertisement railed against "the barbaric agenda of militant homosexuals" and accused the Supreme Court of imposing a "bathhouse morality." Many readers thought the advertisement crossed the line of tolerance and good taste and wrote letters to the editor attacking the newspaper that ran it. But many of these letters used language that was as inflammatory as the original advertisement, saying that the advertisement was guilty of a "horrifying viciousness and bigotry"; a "hysterical and sensationalistic tone" that indicated "outright fear-mongering and exploitation"; and a "misinformed and hateful rhetoric." In each of these instances, emotionally charged phrases were substitutes for carefully reasoned arguments. Perhaps the authors of these letters believed, as writers overcome with rage or dismay often do, that the viciousness, hysteria, or exploitation they criticize is obvious. You will see that this sort of appeal cannot resolve the issue if you consider the fact that the sentiments of outrage expressed by those who placed the original advertisement were equally strong. The lesson is that emotional language, which presents extreme or distorted views (a type of illegitimate bias we discuss in Chapter 10), is no substitute for argument. Emotional language invites problems and confusion. In the example we have just noted, there is no precise meaning to expressions like: "barbaric agenda," "bathhouse morality," "horrifying viciousness and bigotry," "outright fear-mongering and exploitation," and so on. They push in the opposite way that euphemisms do---by using expressions that are more, rather than less, harsh or blunt. It might be possible to explain some of these terms, but no serious effort was made, making them a weakness rather than a strength. Exercise 5-1 1. The following is from a piece by Chi Luu in *JStor Daily* (September 30, 2020). Discuss any problems with language it identifies. Circle all the terms within it that might need to be discussed or defined. How might someone argue that this is a case of overly emotional language? How might someone argue that it is, in fact, exposing an illegitimate use of language? 2\. The following is part of an exchange between Quebecois leader, Yves-François Blanchet and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, during parliament April 20, 2020 on the issue of taxation during the COVID-19 pandemic and is taken from the *Hansard* record for that date. Identify any terms or phrases on which the two of them disagree. Does any of the language have emotional import? 3\. In 2024 Jools Lebron, an American content creator, became famous overnight with her "very demure, very mindful, very cutesy" TikTok video. This content became a viral trend. Google Lebron's TikTok video (handle: joolieannie if you are not familiar with it. What do you think of the way it has changed the way we talk (and, arguably, the way we think)? Can you think of other cases in which social media influences have influenced the way we talk and think? **\2 Vagueness and Ambiguity** The use of words or phrases that are **vague** or **ambiguous** is one common way in which arguers fail to be clear and precise. These are not synonyms; they signify different problems with language that you need to recognize when assessing other arguers' arguments. In your own arguing, you need to construct arguments that are not undermined by language that is vague or ambiguous. A word or phrase is ***vague*** if it has no clearly specifiable meaning or application. Words or phrases like "American values," "existential situation," "I'm fine," "liberal," and "interesting" when used without qualification, are vague terms. When we use terms that audiences can interpret in very different ways and we do not define our intended meaning, we run the risk of miscommunication. In many circumstances, vagueness encourages unintended confusions over the meaning of whole sentences as well as single words and phrases. When a review committee asked a professor why a student's research had been prematurely terminated, the professor explained: "the student had legitimate problems related to the maintenance and survival of his experimental organisms." What this meant was unclear to the review committee until the student provided a less vague explanation: "My fish died." Sometimes advertisers purposely use vague language. A claim that a laundry detergent "gets clothes up to 50 per cent cleaner" appears to promise a great deal, but it is difficult to understand precisely what: for what does "50 per cent cleaner" mean? Cleaner than what? The closest competitor? Not using any detergent? How is 50 per cent cleaner to be measured? You should try to resolve instances of vagueness when preparing an argument diagram, in a way that is true to the arguer's intended meaning. Sometimes "initial vagueness" can be resolved by considering the context in which the argument arises. In such cases, the argument has been expressed poorly, but your analysis of it need not be. When the claims of the arguer and the context cannot help you determine a clear meaning of a term or phrase, you have uncovered a serious weakness in the argument. In the most difficult cases, you will not be able to evaluate the argument. Like vagueness, ambiguity may undermine our ability to fully evaluate an argument. Words or phrases are ***ambiguous*** when they can have more than one specifiable meaning. **Semantic ambiguity** occurs when words with multiple meanings are not distinguished. In puns, it is intentional. The joke "I don't see how it's possible to have a civil war. I've never seen enemies that were civil to each other" elicits a smile because "civil" can refer to something that takes place between citizens of the same country or the act of being polite. On a lighter note, the texting acronym "LOL" originally connoted "laughing out loud." If you used LOL when you were chatting or texting with someone it meant you were laughing at something in the conversation. This has changed since the 1990s. LOL might indicate that someone is laughing; it could also mean that the sender is trying to be friendly or agreeable in a back-and-forth texting conversation. Emojis have similar issues. The folded hands emoji indicates hands in a "prayer position," but it is also regularly used as a "high-five response." Presumably, one would use the emoji to imply prayer or a high-five in very different contexts, and if the audience is unaware of the multiple meanings, it can cause confusion. An **amphibole** (also called a **syntactic ambiguity**) is an ambiguity that results from a grammatical construction that can be interpreted in different ways. When someone says "She saw the woman with her binoculars," the structure of the sentence is unclear. It could mean that woman 1 was looking through her binoculars and saw woman 2; or that woman 1 saw binocular-owning woman 2 carrying them; or that woman 1 saw woman 2 carrying woman 1's binoculars. In other cases, the punctuation of a sentence may make it ambiguous. Consider a famous legal case (O'Connor *v.* Oakhurst Dairy) in which Maine milk-truck drivers won ten million dollars in overtime pay because of a (missing?) comma. The issue was the interpretation of a Maine law that stated that workers were not entitled to overtime pay for: This law is ambiguous and can be interpreted in two different ways we will designate **A** and **B**. It states that overtime did not have to be paid to workers who were: The Oakhurst Dairy adoped interpretation **A,** which seems to be the interpretation the lawmakers intended (which implies that packers and distributors were exempt from overpay). The truckers' union chose interpretation **B**, arguing that the overtime exemption did not apply to them because they were not involved in packing at all (they just drove trucks\--distribution). The court ultimately decided in favour of the truckers' interpretation because there was no ("Oxford") comma after the phrase "packing for shipment." The example shows you that punctuation matters when you want your meaning to be clear! Avoiding vagueness and ambiguity in our own arguments is not always easy. Like some other good reasoning matters, we must avoid it by considering how an argument will be interpreted when considered from someone else's perspective. Often, we are so close to our own arguments that we do not appreciate the confusions they may foster, failing to see the vagueness or ambiguity in what we have said or written. You can minimize such problems by preparing drafts of your arguments, setting them aside, and coming back to them. A few days later, you can read your work with a more critical eye. Ask yourself whether your intended meaning is clear and unambiguous. Clarify it where necessary, but do not worry about implausible meanings that someone might artificially attribute to your remarks. Arguers who do so are guilty of the fallacy "straw man," a problem we discuss in a later chapter of this book. When you respond to the arguments of other arguers, you have a responsibility to avoid interpreting them in ways that assign them implausible meanings. In cases in which more than one meaning is possible, try to resolve the vagueness or ambiguity by considering the context and your knowledge of the arguer and their background. In cases in which you cannot resolve a problem that arises because of vagueness or ambiguity, you can criticize an arguer or someone making a claim by identifying the problems with their claims. During the COVID epidemic, the Toronto Star (Jan 15, 2021) included the following in their daily news summary: \ End block quotation\> In this case, the *Star* can be criticized for syntactic ambiguity, for this report can be understood in two ways, as suggesting that Ontario was reporting Interpretation (ii) misrepresents a situation in which the 100 deaths were a record high, and the 2,998 cases were not. Connected to the statement that Pfizer was cutting back vaccine deliveries to Canada, (ii) invites the conclusion that both the number of deaths and the number of cases were at record highs. This is an important distinction, as (ii) suggests that the number of deaths and cases is growing, inviting an inference to the conclusion that the crisis is expanding in both ways. Which is correct? Exercise 5-2 1\. Are the following claims vague or ambiguous or both? If vague, explain why. If ambiguous, state whether it is a case of amphibole (syntactic ambiguity) or semantic ambiguity, and provide at least two alternative interpretations. 2\. The following remarks are medical and real estate "bloopers." In each case, diagnose the problem (vagueness, ambiguity, or something else) and, if possible, rewrite the statement to make it clear and precise. 3\. The following screen capture contains a headline that was eventually corrected because it was misleading due to language construction. What is misleading? What type of language problem exists? Screen Shot 2016-03-02 at 9.06.51 PM.png \3 Equivocation and Verbal Disputes Although ambiguity is indispensable in entertainment and creative writing, it is usually a problem in argumentative discourse. When an argument depends on two or more different meanings of a term or phrase, you can usually charge them with the fallacy of **equivocation**. Consider: \ Since, as scientists tell us, energy neither comes into being nor goes out of being, there should not be an energy crisis. \ The problem with this reasoning lies in the meanings of the term "energy." In its first occurrence, the word refers to the total amount of energy in the universe. In its second, it refers to our diminishing supplies of gas and oil and electricity. The premise---that scientists tell us that energy neither comes into being nor goes out of being---does not support the conclusion that there shouldn't be an energy crisis, because the two statements refer to two different kinds of "energy." The ambiguity of the word "energy" makes the confusion possible. Consider a second example: \ Science has discovered many laws of nature. This surely constitutes proof that there is a God, for wherever there are laws, there must be a lawgiver. Consequently, God must exist as the Great Lawgiver of the universe. \ We can diagram this argument as follows: [P1 + P2] - This argument may initially seem convincing, but not if you think carefully about the meaning of the word "laws," which is used in two different ways in its premises. The laws laid down by a legislative body or lawgiver are "prescriptive" laws. In contrast, the laws identified by science are only "descriptive" laws that identify regularities or patterns in the world. P1 is true only if the word "laws" is interpreted to mean "descriptive laws," but P2 is plausible only if "laws" is interpreted to mean "prescriptive laws." At first glance, the conclusion seems to follow, but that's because the arguer equivocates on these two different meanings of the word "laws." When a group of arguers is involved in discussion or debate, an equivocation may precipitate a ***verbal dispute***, which can be contrasted with a *real dispute*. In a real dispute, the parties to the dispute utter opposing statements. In a **verbal dispute**, the disputants appear to utter opposing views, but this is an illusion which arises because they assign different meanings to some key term or phrase. In such a case, what appears to be a real difference is only verbal. We noted an instance of a verbal dispute at the beginning of this book. We began with an account of Monty Python's "argument room" skit. At one point in the exchange, the paying client and the professional arguer enter into a long debate over the question whether they have had an argument. The professional arguer maintains they have; the client maintains they have not. The exchange is a heated one, but it is a verbal dispute. It appears real because they use the word "argument" in two different ways. According to one meaning (adopted by the professional arguer), an argument is any disagreement. According to the other (adopted by the client), an argument is a connected series of propositions, which includes premises and a conclusion. There is no real dispute about what is going on in the argument room. The arguers agree about what is going on---it appears otherwise only because they have decided to use the word "argument" in two different ways. There are circumstances in which verbal disputes arise over more serious matters. Imagine two people discussing the question of whether laws governing physician assisted death should be extended to people who do not have a "reasonably foreseeable death." One person supports "such euthanasia," believing it is morally justifiable because it allows terminally ill patients the opportunity to die with dignity and not depend on life-support. The other argues that you cannot disguise the reality with euphemisms, and that all euthanasia is morally wrong because it is, in the final analysis, nothing less than murder. In this context, the opposing conclusions---"euthanasia is morally justifiable" and "euthanasia is not morally justifiable"---seem to signify a real dispute. But it is possible that it is verbal. For the first person may be talking about "passive" euthanasia: which occurs when one withholds extraordinary systems of life support (allowing an individual to die), and the second may be talking about "active" euthanasia, which involves direct intervention (like the injection of a lethal drug). In such a case, there is no real dispute---not because we cannot debate the morality of either type of euthanasia, but because the comments of the two disputants are comments about different kinds of euthanasia. Like disputes, agreements may be merely verbal. A real agreement must be built upon a mutual understanding of crucial terms and phrases. Two individuals who think they share a belief in "capitalism" actually disagree when one of them understands capitalism to imply a fully free market that leaves no room for government intervention in the economy, while the other believes in a less radical capitalism that makes room for government regulations that establish minimum wages and protect the environment. A company with a policy that prohibited "access to confidential files after business hours" once accused an employee of violating that policy. The employee denied that they had done so. Initially this seemed to be a real dispute---one that might have resulted in the dismissal of the employee (especially when they denied the charge). But the dispute was discovered to be verbal, the company understood "business hours" to be business hours where the company's headquarters was located; the employee understood it to mean business hours at the location where someone was working (on a visit to Hong Kong). In cases like this, verbal disputes are characterized by instances of equivocation, for the opposing arguments back and forth assume---incorrectly---that some term (in this example, "business hours") is used the same way by opposing arguers. Once we recognize the term's different meanings, the equivocations will be clear---in a way that shows that the opposing arguers have created arguments that are not real instances of arguing. Exercise 5-3 1\. Each of the following claims can be interpreted in a variety of ways. In a discussion, this means that arguers may adopt two different plausible meanings that give rise to equivocation or a verbal dispute. To practice avoiding such problems, distinguish (at least) two senses of each claim and express each interpretation in a way that makes clearer what is intended. 2\. The following arguments involve instances of ambiguity, vagueness, or equivocation. Diagram the arguments and discuss the seriousness of the problem with language. Are we able to use context to resolve the vagueness or ambiguity? \**4** **Formulating Definitions** Two recent examples illustrate the importance of definitions and their potentially controversial nature. In 2018, just over a year after Donald Trump was elected president, *The New York Times* published an article reviewing his performance measured against other presidents and raising the question of whether he was "presidential." This prompted a number of readers to write into the paper offering their ideas on what constituted "being presidential" and whether Trump belonged in that category (invariably, they judged he did not). The responses showed how the definition of "presidential" varied for different constituencies. Some stressed qualities of character; others a certain way in which an individual presents him or herself; others the president's manner of speaking and behavior. What the definitions show is that there is no clear agreement on what "presidential" means. Consider the following image: \  https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/aquabounty-offers-investors-a-piece-of-gm-salmon/ \**Illustration 5.1** Fish? What do you see in the picture? "Animal"? "Fish"? "Food"? The answer may seem obvious, but a decision by the United States Food and Drug Administration ([fda]{.smallcaps}) chose to classify genetically modified salmon (the large 'fish' in our illustration) as a "drug" rather than "food," or "animal." As a consequence, the FDA evaluated the salmon---designed by a laboratory on Prince Edward Island---using the rules governing veterinary drugs, rather than new food products. Some sceptical consumer groups went much further, suggesting that the development of the fish was 'monstrous' describing it not as "fish" but as "frankenfish" (after the famous monster Frankenstein). In a Special to *The Globe and Mail* (Updated March 25, 2017), Simon Fraser University Sociology professor Peter McKnight discussed the relationship between humans and apes in light of an Argentinean court decision to recognize an orangutan as a "subject of rights." At issue was the question of whether such apes could meet a satisfactory definition of "personhood": \ \ McKnight's remarks can be interpreted as an instance of the argument scheme ***argument by analogy***, which we discuss in Chapter 13. In the current discussion, what matters is the way his argument depends on a particular understanding of the term "personhood." He assumes that central characteristics that any definition of "personhood" should contain include: autonomy, rationality, self-awareness. On the basis of this definition, he argues that apes should be treated as persons with human rights. Such examples illustrate the central role that definitions play in many arguments. This is one reason why it is important that you understand different kinds of definitions and the ways in which they can be used. Armed with that understanding, you can use definitions to resolve problems of vagueness and ambiguity in your and others' arguments. Definitions provide your audience with a quick and precise account of the meaning of a term you use. In this case, or when you are attempting to make explicit the meaning of a term used by another arguer, there are different kinds of definition you can use. \Extensional and Intensional Definitions In our quotation from Peter McKnight's remarks there is an implicit reference to the way in which we usually classify things. In this and many other cases, the meanings of terms are conventional. McKnight assumes a conventional meaning for "personhood." In this and similar cases, definitions are widely used and understood by speakers and writers in a broad community. In arguing, it may also be important to recognize conventions which are used or assumed by smaller groups and by different audiences. Dictionaries try to capture the conventional uses of words and modify their definitions as conventions change. Other meanings might be described as non-conventional. In these cases, a word or phrase is given a specific meaning for a specific purpose. When we provide definitions in our arguments (not lexicographers), we indicate what a word or phrase means because this is important to our argument. We do this in two principal ways: by providing an extensional or an intensional definition. **Extensional definitions** clarify a term by identifying members of the class of things it names. The following are examples of extensional definitions: \ "That," as one points to people engaged in a particular activity, "is a game." "Humanistic studies" means "studies in language, literature, philosophy, fine arts, religion, and music." \ Extensional definitions may be constructed visually, by pointing or by indicating the members of a class with pictures, or by naming instances of the things to which the term applies. In our second example, we do so by noting how the larger class of things comprises a series of representative subclasses. ***Intensional definitions*** clarify the meaning of a term by identifying the essential qualities that make something a member of the class of things it names---that is, by reference to its meaning, or *intension*. The following are examples of intensional definitions: \ "Scapula" is the bone that is usually called the shoulder-blade "Nom de plume" is a pseudonym used by a writer. \ These examples are instances of the simplest form of **intensional definition**, which substitutes a familiar term for an unfamiliar one. By invoking the familiar term, the definition helps an audience understand the essential characteristics of the thing in question. In formal situations, when we want to ensure that something is defined as precisely as possible, we may employ an intensional definition by *genus* and *differentia*. It designates the class to which a thing belongs (its *genus*) and the characteristics that distinguish it from other members of the class (its *differentia*). The following definitions are definitions by genus and differentia: \ A "chair" is "a piece of furniture (genus) designed for the purpose of seating one person and providing a support for the back (differentia)." A "person" is a living being (genus) that has autonomy, rationality and self-awareness (differentia). "Happiness" is "a state of mind (genus) characterized by the satisfaction that one has achieved what one deems to be worthwhile and by the absence of mental anguish (differentia)." \ In each of these examples, the definition identifies the larger class to which something belongs and then specifies the way in which it is distinguished from other members of the class. Though they can be complex to construct, the details that definitions by genus and differentia require often make them the best way to clarify a term or phrase. Like all definitions, they may still be challenged. Conventional meanings can be captured in both extensional and intensional definitions. In the extensional case, the extension conveys the boundaries of the intension. Both kinds of definition can also be used to establish non-conventional meanings we use in particular contexts. In the middle of a crisis we may, for example, define "today's heros" as "those who manage to perform an everyday task that the crisis makes difficult" (intension) and then point to a cook who is in a school kitchen, preparing food for hundreds of survivors (extension). In most arguments, conventional understandings suffice. But there will be times when conventional meanings do not fit your precise purpose, and you will need to stipulate that you are using a term or phrase in a more specific way. In a sociology paper, you may want to restrict the meaning of "the unemployed" to "those people who are actively seeking employment" and define "actively seeking employment" as "making at least two job inquiries a week." Definitions like this can help you avoid vagueness, ambiguity, and verbal disputes. Even if your audience---an instructor, perhaps---does not agree with your definition, he or she will be able to better understand you because you have explicitly stated how you intend a key term or phrase to be understood. "Democracy" normally means "government by the people either directly or through elected representatives," but you may want to use the term in a more restricted sense. You may use an extensional definition: "By the term 'democracy' I mean the kind of rule by the people found in Canada and the US, not in South Korea and Singapore." Or you could use an intensional definition: "By the term 'democracy' I mean rule by the people through the representatives chosen by popular votes in free multi-party elections." The important thing is that you inform your audience that the definition you are providing has a non-conventional meaning, so that they understand how you are using it. Many arguments and remarks are difficult to understand---or are misleading---because authors use familiar words as key terms in specific ways but fail to stipulate their meaning. Consider the claim "The law of the Catholic church forbids the marriage of priests." Suppose that the context does not make it clear whether the marriage of priests is forbidden by the church's understanding of the will of God or by the laws the church employs in administration, for strictly practical purposes. The former situation makes the non-marriage of priests a "divine law," the latter an "ecclesiastical law." The claim, then, is subject to two interpretations: (1) divine law forbids the marriage of priests, and (2) ecclesiastical law forbids the marriage of priests. Because the alternative meanings pivot on the single term "law," this is the kind of situation that could easily give rise to an equivocation or a verbal dispute. In his 2024 address to the Democrat National Convention, President Biden complained that billionaires paid too little taxes. His exact words were: "We have a thousand billionaires in America. Know the average tax rate they pay? 8.2%.*"* In a fact-checking exercise in *USA Today* (August 20, 2024), he was criticized for a misleading claim based on a 2021 analysis from White House economists on the tax rate of the 400 wealthiest families in the U.S. from 2010 to 2018. Their analysis included "unrealized" gains in the total taxable income of these families (gains due to the rising value of their property and stock values), income that is not normally treated as taxable income until it is cashed out in some way. When *The New York Times* considered the tax rate of America's 400 people it used the standard understanding of taxable income and concluded that they paid 23% of their income in taxes. In this context, Biden's claim is misleading. At the very least he should have acknowledged that he was understanding "taxable income" in a unique way. Perhaps it was a better way, though that claim would have to be justified. In the speech to the DNC he was promoting bad reasoning, as his failure to explain this invited the equivocation which occurs when his audience compared their tax rate (based on the normal account of taxable income) and compared it to that of wealthy people (based on a very different definition). In constructing your own arguments, be prepared to define key terms, especially unfamiliar and technical terms, and terms that are vague or ambiguous or used in a way that deviates from conventional usage. This task may sound more formidable than it is: normally, the number of terms that require definition is not large. The vast majority of the words you use will be common ones that have a meaning that your audience will understand. In cases where words with several meanings, the context will usually make the meaning clear. You can use extensional definitions to link your words and your arguments to the world of experience. If terms did not have extensions, the definitions in our dictionaries would be circular, for they would, in every case, define terms by means of other terms that had no foothold in reality. You can use an extensional definition to anchor the meaning of an important word in the world beyond our language. On the other hand, an extensional definition is rarely able to indicate every application of the term defined. For practical reasons, it can, in most cases, do no more than indicate a sample of the things included in a term's extension. A large and representative list would be unwieldy. And even if we provided such a list, it would not identify the common features that establish that the items it lists are included in the extension. Because it focuses on the essential features shared by those things in a term's extension, an intensional definition that defines a term in a single, relatively simple, well-constructed sentence is in many cases the clearest and most convenient way to proceed. If you are unsure as to how you should construct such a definition, you might try a definition by genus and differentia. Begin by specifying the kind of thing you are defining, and proceed to an account of the differences between it and other things of the same sort. \Definition through Argument On some occasions, you may construct arguments about a definition. They may propose a modified sense of a term, show that an object or event fits a specific (e.g., legal) definition, or introduce a new term altogether. Philosophers often contest established definitions of "personhood" by challenging one of the characteristics included, adding a further property, or offering a definition that does not identify essential properties. The astronomers of the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the official naming body for astronomy since 1919, created a controversy when they modified the conventional definition of "planet" during a general assembly in 2006. The revised definition changed the extension of the term, removing Pluto and assigning it the subterm "dwarf planet." This did not end the debate. In 2019, after a discussion held by the Philosophical Society of Washington, Alan Stern, the principal investigator of the New Horizons mission that flew past Pluto in 2015, tweeted that a majority of attendees supported his geophysical definition of "planet," suggesting that Pluto should be reincluded. Exercise 5-4 1\. What kind of definition is each of the following? 2\. Each of the following arguments presents or modifies a definition or debates how something should be defined. For each example, provide a diagram, and then identify the key term being defined and the type of definition employed. Is the definition adequate? \5 Rules for Good Definitions To help you construct definitions, we offer the following four rules that good definitions must follow. \Rule 1: The Rule of Equivalence \ *The defining phrase should include neither more nor less than the term being defined*. \ If "A" stands for the term defined and "B" for the defining phrase, then A and B must be equivalent. Those things designated by A must be the same as those things designated by B. The definition of "violin" as "a stringed musical instrument" is too broad because there are many stringed musical instruments that are not violins. The definition of "portrait" as "a large oil painting of a person's head and shoulders" is too narrow because portraits are not necessarily large and are not always done in oils. The rule of equivalence is respected in the extensional definition "*That* \[pointing to a cow\] is a cow" because it is understood that the extension includes all animals of this sort. \Rule 2: The Rule of Essential Characteristics \ *In an intensional definition, the defining phrase must specify the essential features of the thing defined, i.e. the traits that are indispensable to its being what it is, rather than accidental features.* \ The definition of "the moon" as "the large object in the sky that is sometimes said to be made of green cheese" satisfies the rule of equivalence (for there is only one astronomical object with this reputation), but it does not pick out the things that make the moon what it is. Instead, it fastened on an aspect of it that is incidental, and more reflective of human opinions than the nature of the moon. We will do better to define the moon as "the earth's natural satellite, which shines at night by the sun's reflected light." In specifying essential characteristics, keep in mind that different characteristics may be counted as essential in different contexts. In introducing a book on the history of comic strips, one might begin by defining human beings as "the only animals that read comic strips." In such a context, this may be what matters, though a similar definition of human beings is unlikely to be helpful in a lecture on moral responsibility. \Rule 3: The Rule of Clarity \ *The defining phrase must clarify the meaning of the term defined by using words that make it readily understood by the intended audience.* \ Since we use definitions precisely when we want to clarify meaning, we undermine our definitions when they do not successfully explain our meaning to our intended audience. Plato's definition of "time" as "the moving image of eternity" presupposes familiarity with his theory of reality. In another context and, some would argue, even against the background of his theory, this definition of "time" violates the principle of clarity. An attempt to define "architecture" in terms of "frozen music" might suit an informal talk on the aesthetics of architecture but only if it is backed by an explanation that makes it clear how this is to be understood. The rule of clarity is often violated by arguments that use *circular definitions*. A circular definition defines a word in terms of the word itself or, in some cases, by using terms or phrases so similar that the meaning of the original term is not made any clearer. "By 'human rights' I mean the rights of human beings," is a circular definition. It will not explain what human rights are to someone who does not understand them. A better definition is: "Human rights are rights (such as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) that are believed to belong to all human beings." As this example shows, the repetition of part of the term defined is permissible, provided does not confuse the audience. When we define a term like "isosceles triangle" or "watchdog," we will probably want to repeat the modified term ("triangle," "dog") within our definition. In some cases, circular definitions use defining phrases that include obvious synonyms and correlative phrases without properly explaining the idea that the term or its synonyms refer to. The definition "a homosexual is a gay person" uses a synonym and does not explain what a homosexual or a gay person is. The definition "a cause is something that produces an effect" illustrates the use of correlative terms. There may be rare contexts in which these definitions are useful (as when someone who does not speak English well understands the synonym or the correlative term but not the term defined). But these definitions usually count as circular. Like synonyms, antonyms may also violate the rule of clarity. An "evil person" can be defined as "a person who is not good" and "night" as "not day," but such definitions rarely explain these notions to an audience who doesn't understand what they mean. \Rule 4: The Rule of Neutrality \ *The defining phrase must avoid terms heavily charged with emotion.* \ Earlier in this chapter, we noted the problems that can arise when arguers use euphemisms and emotional language. These problems are compounded when arguers offer or assume "persuasive" definitions (definitions designed to emotionally appeal to a specific audience) that are founded on ulterior motives. One violates the rule of neutrality if one defines "socialism" as "that form of government that steals wealth from energetic people and divides it among the lazy poor" or "capitalism" as "a system built on greed that ensures that the poor suffer and the rich get richer." \Constructing Good Definitions The rules for a good definition are easier to understand than apply. In dealing with real definitions, you will find that many of them violate more than one of the rules or that the same problem might be described in terms of different rules. It can also be difficult to identify the unique, essential, and defining differentia that distinguish one group of things from the other members of a larger class. In some cases, defining properties are not at all obvious. What are the unique defining characteristics of a "human being"? Rationality? A capacity to create symbols and communicate by means of them? A sense of moral responsibility? The ability to create and use sophisticated tools? If you see the last three of these characteristics as expressions of human rationality, where do you propose to draw the line between "higher animals," such as apes, and human beings with a very low [iq]{.smallcaps}? Especially in moral contexts, where our judgements of individuals may depend on a definition, controversies surrounding the meaning of a term are common. In July 2005, Canada became the fourth country in the world to legalize same-sex marriages. The change in the status of marriage provoked much debate in the country both before and after Parliament passed the law. The previous definition of marriage, based on the British common law, was "the lawful union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." Bill C-38, also known as the Civil Marriage Act, introduced a new definition of marriage: "Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others." This expanded definition changed the way a significant number of Canadians were treated. The problems that arise when you try to define a complex notion like "human being" or "marriage" reflect the difficulties that arise when we try to decide the extension of important terms. Does the human embryo belong within or outside the class of "human beings"? If outside, then when does it become a human being? If within, is it entitled to "rights and freedoms," including the right to life, liberty, and security of the person? In constructing your own definitions, and in judging those of others, remember that good definitions must recognize the audiences to which they are directed and be suitable for their intended purpose. The definition of "water" as "a liquid compound of 11.188 per cent hydrogen and 88.812 per cent oxygen by weight, which freezes at 0 and boils at 100 degrees Celsius" may be useful in an introductory science lecture, but quite unserviceable in an article about the measures we should take to protect the nation's water resources. \Expressing Your Intended Meaning We have emphasized good definitions as a way to deal with issues of meaning. Sometimes the definitions we need to learn and consult are those that explain the meanings assumed by individuals with different backgrounds, environmental influences, peer groups, political commitments, problems, loves, and loyalties. They belong to the web of beliefs that arguers bring to bear on arguments they propose. This can sometimes precipitate issues of meaning. Alternatively, a problem may arise in view of the issues discussed in this chapter. A term may be vague or ambiguous. An author may fail to ensure that their key terms are clear and used consistently throughout the text. They may slide between two different meanings of a term and be guilty of equivocation. If an author fails to stipulate a special meaning for a crucial but familiar term, you should identify alternative senses that are possible within that context. If an arguer uses an unfamiliar term without providing a definition, you should identify the meaning or meanings justified by the arguer's use of it (don't be shy about referring to a dictionary). In your own arguments, you should spare your audience such work by carefully considering your choice of words, by using definitions as appropriate, and by employing the terms you use consistently and not conflating different meanings. Even after you have addressed the problems of meaning that stem from an author's use of specific words and phrases, you may find a claim open to alternative senses or interpretations. You should choose between the alternatives by a process of elimination that is guided by the intended meaning of the whole text, common sense, and charity (by giving arguers "the benefit of the doubt"). If one of the plausible senses stands in blatant contradiction to the main claim of the text, then common sense dictates that you reject it. If other interpretations appear irrelevant or trivial or uninteresting or obviously false, eliminate them unless you have a special reason for not doing so. Eventually, you should be left with a plausible interpretation of the author's intended meaning---or, in some cases, two different interpretations that are worth explanation, discussion and consideration. This process will not be necessary if the author communicates clearly and precisely. The lesson for you, as you go about constructing extended arguments, is that you should make your meaning is clear. This is worth doing even if you must endure some labour pains in the process of giving birth to your claims and arguments. After you formulate a claim, ask yourself whether it clearly says what you mean or can be interpreted in other ways. Be prepared to amend it---several times, if necessary. Don't be satisfied until you have a way of expressing your views that communicates exactly what you mean. Exercise 5-5 1\. What rule(s) of definition, if any, does each of the following definitions violate? In each case, explain your answer in one sentence. a\) Child abuse is the physical and/or psychological violence inflicted on a child as an expression of parental anger and frustration. 2\. You must define a key term for the audience you are addressing. Formulate a definition that would be appropriate for each of the following circumstances: M[ajor]{.smallcaps} E[xercises]{.smallcaps} 5-M **[(A) Knowledge Exercises]{.smallcaps}** A maze in the head of a person Description automatically generated 1. The following are key terms discussed in this chapter. Review them. If there are any that are unfamiliar, or confusing, look them up in the Glossary. You should leave this chapter comfortable with this language. \ \ 2\. Articulate the difference between vague and ambiguous language for yourself. Give an example to demonstrate your explanation. 3\. Semantic ambiguity and equivocation are similar. Explain the difference between ambiguous language and the fallacy of equivocation. **[(B) Skills Exercises]{.smallcaps}**  1\. Diagram the reasoning in each of the following arguments and then, in a few paragraphs, assess the strengths and weaknesses of the language employed. Look in particular for problematic instances of vagueness, ambiguity, and emotional language. Determine whether any key terms are left undefined, and in the case of definitions provided and argued for, assess them according to the ideas in this chapter. b) \[From Alan Borovoy: Defining Canada\'s obscenity law, *National Post*, Feb 09, 2015\] ========================================================================================= 3\. The "Pluto debate" continues, as different definitions of "planet" are introduced. Explore this debate with a view to discussing how definitions are formed and tested. What is the "geophysical" definition promoted by Alan Stern earlier in the chapter? Start with the question of an "evolving definition" as it is discussed on the following site: https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/in-depth/ **[4.]{.smallcaps}** The following exchange is excerpted from a Forbes, Jun 27, 2024, account of a presidential campaign debate between President Biden and President Trump. How would you describe it from a critical thinking point of view, using the notions we have introduced you to? a. Trump called Biden a "criminal," raising unproven allegations Biden used his influence as vice president to benefit his son, Hunter Biden, who was recently convicted of federal gun-related charges. b. Trump and Biden also said the other was the worst president in the country's history. c. Earlier in the debate, Biden called Trump a "sucker" and a loser," referring to claims made by Trump's former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly that Trump called military members who died in combat "losers" and those who were wounded or captured "suckers." d. The president said to Trump: "You're the sucker, you're the loser." e. Trump denied Kelly's accusation in response to Biden, said it was "made up" and demanded Biden apologize. **[(C) Reflective Questions]{.smallcaps}** A light bulb in a head Description automatically generated 1\. One of the reasons for ambiguity arising in our conversations is because words have different meanings and sometimes these are appropriate in the same context. Think about your own language use, perhaps in the context of an argument you've had, and identify one or two terms that could give rise to ambiguity if the usage is not made clear. 2\. If we take all the emotion out of arguing, would something of value be lost? In spite of the problems we have seen when emotional language masks meaning, we might do better to police it rather than remove it. Discuss what would have to be done to ensure emotional language did not interfere with the give and take of reasons in social debates. 3\. Choose one or more questions below and respond to them in writing; take approximately five minutes for each response. a. At what moment while reading Chapter 5 were you most engaged with the material? b. At what moment while reading Chapter 5 were you most distanced from the material? c. What material while reading Chapter 5 did you find most affirming or helpful? d. What material while reading Chapter 5 did you find most puzzling or confusing? e. What about the material in Chapter 5surprised you the most? (This could be about your own reactions to the content or exercises, something that someone (e.g. your peer or instructor) did, or anything else that relates to reading this chapter). \ For more online exercises, review questions, and quizzes related to the material in this chapter, please go to https://sites.broadviewpress.com/reasoning