Hey what’s up Thinkers! Kathy Gibbens here…
Let’s start off with a quick review of a fallacy we covered earlier this season, the Job’s Comforter Fallacy. Do you want to hit the pause button and see if you can remember what that fallacy is? So, the Job’s Comforter Fallacy happens when someone blames the person who is suffering as having caused their own suffering rather than offering genuine comfort or support to the person. Or they offer misguided and insensitive arguments for why the person’s suffering is happening.
So, the question to ask yourself when you find yourself in a situation where you are offering comfort to a person who is suffering is this: “What does this person really need to hear right now?”
If you want to review or hear more about the Job’s Comforter Fallacy, go back & check out Episode 161.
Since you’re listening to this podcast, I know you’re interested in learning & teaching your child HOW to think, not just what to think. Have you also considered homeschooling your kids? Do you wonder if you could really do it? Our sponsor, Classical Conversations, is a homeschool program that cultivates strong critical thinkers in a local community by following a Christ-centered curriculum rooted in the classical model. And don’t worry, before we started with them, I didn’t know what the Classical model was either! To learn more about this unique program and to get two free downloadable e-books, just fill out the form at classicalconversations.com/filterit.
Alright, let’s dive into today’s new fallacy, the Definist Fallacy. In the last episode, we talked about the Appeal to Definition fallacy, and today we have another fallacy having to do with definitions, The Definist Fallacy. The Definist Fallacy happens when someone insist on using a specific definition of a word because that definition makes their argument easier to defend, while at the same time, they reject another, equally valid definition of a word if it makes their argument harder to defend.
Here’s a simple example of this fallacy. Your Mom wakes up on a Saturday morning and says, “Don’t ask me any questions before I’ve had my magical elixir that gives me the will to be productive!” To which you reply, “Uhhh…you mean coffee?” Ok, can you see how your Mom was using a very specific definition of the word coffee to describe how she doesn’t have the energy to do anything yet?
The Definist Fallacy happens when a vegans refer to meat eaters as “animal murderers”, when Libertarians define taxation as “legalized theft” and when people who questioned Covid mandates and lock-downs were called “Science deniers”. Do you see how they came up with very specific definitions that make their argument easier to defend?
The problem behind the thinking in the Definist Fallacy is that it doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s a form of name-calling that’s used to prove a point and to diminish or discredit other possible definitions or viewpoints. Typically, it’s done to make the alternative seem more polarizing than it might really be. Either way, it’s not telling the whole story. It’s the word version of a Strawman Fallacy, which we covered back in episode 8.
Here’s another example of how different groups will define words in certain ways to support their cause or beliefs. Groups that support abortion, Pro-Choice groups, will define a baby in the womb as a ‘fetus’ or a ‘clump of cells’, whereas organizations that oppose abortion, Pro-Life groups, will define a baby in the womb as ‘an unborn human being’. Can you see how each group’s definition of the same word is chosen to support their beliefs? These differing definitions make it very difficult for these two groups to have any sort of civil discussion because they fundamentally reject each other’s definitions.
Question to ask yourself if you think you’re facing the Definist Fallacy is this: “Why are they defining that word in that way? Is there another possible definition?”… *repeat*
Remember: When you learn HOW to think, you will no longer fall prey to those who are trying to tell you what THEY want you to think and it all starts with asking one simple question: “Is that really true?”
