| Redefinition |
|
You are here:
Meaning
>
Christian Witness
>
Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies
>
Fallacies of Ambiguity
>
Redefinition
|
Redefinition FallacyRedifinition 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 Redefinition Fallacy occurs when a word is redefined in order to prove a point. This is very different from clarifying the meaning of a word so that a point is not misunderstood. It is also not a fallacy to redefine a word for a specific purpose as in applying a common word to a specific technical discipline in which the word takes on a meaning that is very different from the common meaning of the word. It can be confusing, though. Examples of the Redefinition Fallacy
Here, the redefinition is purposely made broad enough that you don’t know if something is merely an opinion of a select group or it has real observed evidence without opinion behind it. That being the case, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises.
This definition actually is circular. It simply restates the first proposition. God reveals to us, as He speaks through Scripture, that, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” He also reveals that He made everything through His Word, and then He further says that Jesus Christ is His Word. This is not the same as nothing. Why not just say, “I know, by Divine revelation that comes from the indwelling Christ, that God created the Universe and everything in it in six days through His spoken Utterance, Jesus Christ, and there is nothing that is excluded from this Creation other than God, Himself.” 
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 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 Broadly 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 |
