| Defining a Word in Terms of Itself |
Logical Fallacy of Defining a Word in Terms of ItselfDefining a word in terms of itself 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 defining a word in terms of itself, a type of definist fallacy, occurs when someone defines a word in a way that helpful in persuading the audience to believe the conclusion but doesn’t really support the conclusion. The definist fallacy can mean the fallacy of persuasive definition, the definition of one property in terms of another, or the Socratic fallacy which falsely claims that terms are required to be defined before examples of those terms can be given. Here, we are only dealing with the fallacy of defining a word in terms of itself. Examples of the Logical Fallacy of Defining a Word in Terms of Itself
This is the survival of the survivors or the fitness for survival of those fittest to survive. Although both evolutionists and creationists agree that those that are not able to survive do die, this definition sounds like a definition but it doesn’t really explain anything. The term, natural selection, is also irrational because it attributes intelligence to natural processes that possess no intelligence. A much more accurate term would be the elimination of extremely harmful mutations and other life forms that don't adapt to their environments.
Not only is this definition unhelpful to understanding because it is self-referencing, it is also not true/misleading. Naturalism is one view of Atheism. It is not so much of an assertion that there are things that are called natural; rather, it is a denial of the spiritual realm including a denial of God. When understood, naturalism is also a fallacy of universal negative contained in a single world in the same way that materialism is a fallacy of universal negative contained in a single word. 
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 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 |
