.

vagueness - unclearness by virtue of being poorly expressed or not coherent in meaning; "the Conservative manifesto is a model of vagueness"; "these terms were used with a vagueness that suggested little or no thought about what each might convey" unclearness - incomprehensibility as a result of not being clear haziness - vagueness attributable to being not clearly defined

Ambiguity doubtfulness or uncertainty of meaning or intention: to speakwith ambiguity; an ambiguity of manner. 2. an unclear, indefinite, or equivocal word, expression,

4.1 Disputes, Verbal Disputes, and Definitions Disputes can be classified in three categories: 4.1.1. Obviously genuine In obviously genuine disputes, the parties explicitly and unambiguously disagree, either in belief or attitude. 4.1.2. Merely verbal Merely verbal disputes arise when a key term in the disputants formulation of their beliefs is ambiguous, or when a phrase or word that is central in the dispute has different senses that may be equally legitimate but that ought not to be confused. 4.1.3. Apparently verbal but really genuine Apparently verbal but really genuine disputes are verbal only on the surface. The parties involved may indeed misunderstand one anothers use of terms, but their quarrel goes beyond this misunderstanding. Disputes of this third kind are sometimes also called "criterial" or "conceptual." Summary Table Types of Dispute Genuine An explicit, unambiguous disagreement in belief or attitude. A dispute that appears to involve ambiguity in the use of terms but actually rests in a genuine disagreement in belief or attitude that survives clarification of the ambiguity. [[EXAMPLE 3.1.1]]

Apparently verbal but really genuine

[[EXAMPLE 3.1.3]]

4.2 Kinds of Definition and the Resolution of Disputes The Symbol being defined is called the definiendum; the symbol or group of symbols used to explain the meaning of the definiendum is called definiens. The denien is another symbol or group of symbols that, according to the definition, has the same meaning as the definiendum. Definitions, by exposing and eliminating ambiguities, can effectively resolve merely verbal disputes. There are five kinds of definition: 4.2.1. Stipulative Definitions A stipulative definition is one in which a new symbol or term is introduced to which some meaning is arbitrarily assigned. A stipulative definition is neither true nor false, accurate nor inaccurate. 4.2.2. Lexical Definitions

A lexical definition is the kind of definition found in dictionaries, reports the meaning or meanings that a term (definiendum) already has. It is, in other words, a description of the way the speakers of a particular language use a particular term in their language. 4.2.3. Precising Definitions A precising definition serves to reduce vagueness. A term is ambiguous in a given context when it has more than one distinct meaning and the context does not make clear which is intended. Precising definitions are important in law and legislation. 4.2.4. Theoretical Definitions A theoretical definition of a term is a definition that attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term applies. Theoretical definitions go hand in hand with the acceptance of a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding the subject matter to which the defined terms pertain. 4.2. 5. Persuasive Definitions A persuasive definition is a definition formulated and used persuasively to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions, often relying on the use of emotive language. Summary Table Kinds of Definition Type Stipulative Definition A definition in which a new symbol is introduced to which some meaning is arbitrarily assigned. As opposed to a lexical definition, a stipulative definition cannot be correct or incorrect. A definition that reports a meaning the definiendumalready has, and thus a definition that can usually be judged correct or incorrect. A definition devised to eliminate vagueness by delineating a concept more sharply. A definition of a term that attempts to formulate a theoretically adequate or scientifically useful description of the objects to which the term applies. A definition formulated and used to resolve a dispute by influencing attitudes or stirring emotions, often relying upon the use of emotive language. Example [[EXAMPLE 3.2.1.1]]

Lexical

[[EXAMPLE 3.2.2.1]]

Precising

[[EXAMPLE 3.2.3.1]]

Theoretical

[[EXAMPLE 3.2.4.1]]

Persuasive

[[EXAMPLE 3.2.5.1]]

4.3. Extension and Intension General terms: General terms are class terms that may be applicable to more than one object. In reasoning, the definition of general terms is of special importance. General terms, or class term have both an extension and an intension.

The extension of a general term (also called the denotation of the term) denotes the several objects to which it may correctly be applied. The collection of these objects constitutes the extension of the term. The intension of a general term is the set of attributes shared by all and only those objects to which the term refers. These attributes constitute the intensional meaning of the term; they provide the criteria for deciding whether an object falls within the extension of a term. Every general term has both an intensional meaning and an extensional meaning. The extension of a term is determined by its intension, but the reverse is not true. Terms with different intensions may have the same extension, but terms with different extensions cannot possibly have the same intension. 4.4 Extensional Definitions Extensional definitions identify the collection of objects to which a general term applies. The most obvious and effective way to instruct someone about the extension of a term is to give examples of objects denoted by it. A special kind of definition by example is the ostensive or demonstrative definition. Instead of naming or describing the objects denoted by the term being defined, an ostensive definition refers to the examples by means of pointing, or by some other gesture. Ostensive definitions are invariably ambiguous, however, because to point to an object is also to point to a part of it, or to any of its attributes. Quasi-ostensive definitions attempt to resolve this ambiguity by adding a descriptive phrase to the definiens. But this presupposes a prior understanding of the descriptive phrase, defeating the purpose of the ostensive definition. 4.5 Intensional Definitions The intension of a term consists of the attributes shared by all the objects denoted by the term, and shared only by those objects. To develop useful intensional definitions, however, we need to distinguish three senses of intension: subjective, objective, and conventional. The subjective intension of a general term is the set of all attributes that a speaker believes to be possessed by objects denoted by that term. It is an individuals private understanding of a term and is different from individual to individual and even from time to time for the same individual. The purpose of definitions, however, is to reveal the public, not the private, meanings of words. Thus, the subjective intension cannot serve the purposes of definition. The objective intension of a general term is the total set of characteristics shared by the objects in the terms extension. But one would have to be all-knowing to know all the attributes shared by a set of objects. And some attributes, although part of the objective intension of a term, may be obscure and irrelevant to most people who use the term. The conventional intension of a general term consists of the commonly understood attributes of the objects it denotes, the conventionally agreed upon criteria we use in deciding, about any object, whether it is part of the terms extension. For the purposes of definition, this is the most important sense ofand what is generally meant by intension. A synonymous definition is one that defines a word by providing another worda synonymwhose meaning is already understood and has the same meaning as the first. An operational definition is one that states that a term is correctly applied to a given case if and only if the performance of specified operations in that case yields a specified result. Where a synonymous definition is unavailable and an operational definition is inappropriate, we can use a definition by genus and difference. This type of definition is best explained in terms of classes. A class is a collection of entities having some characteristic in common. Many classes can be divided into subclasses. We call the general class genus and the subclasses species. Each species of a given genus has a certain specific characteristic that distinguishes it from all the other species of the genus. We can define a given species of a genus with the help of this specific characteristic (difference). For example, we can define a hexagon as a polygon (genus) with six sides (difference), and we can define a human as an animal (genus) capable of rational thought (difference).

Summary Table Techniques for Defining Terms Technique Definition Example

Ostensive definition

A kind of extensional definition in which the objects denoted by the term being defined are referred to by means of pointing, or with some other gesture; sometimes called a demonstrative definition. A variety of intensional definition that relies on gesture, in conjunction with a descriptive phrase.

[[EXAMPLE 3.4.2]]

Quasi-ostensive definition

[[EXAMPLE 3.4.3]]

Operational definition

A kind of intensionaldefinition, which states that the term to be defined is correctly applied to a given case if and only if the performance of specified operations in that case yields a specified result. A type of intensional definition of a term that first identifies the larger class ("genus") of which thedefiniendum is a species or subclass, and which then identifies the attribute ("difference") that distinguishes the members of that species from members of all other species in that genus.

[[EXAMPLE 3.5.2]]

Definition by genus and difference

[[EXAMPLE 3.5.3]]

4.6. Rules for Definition by Genus and Difference These five rules are useful for evaluating primarily lexical definitions by genus and difference. Rule 1: A definition should state the essential attributes of the species. Rule 2: A definition must not be circular. Rule 3: A definition must be neither too broad nor too narrow. Rule 4: A definition must not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language. Rule 5: A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative.

1. A definition should state the entire connotation of the term, neither less nor more. The entire connotation of the term is given by stating the genus and the differentia of the term. If more than the logical connotation is stated, it becomes over complete definition. If less than the entire connotation is stated, it becomes an incomplete definition. For example, the definition of human beings as language-speaking rational animals states more than the connotation. If we define human beings as rational, it would be a case of incomplete definition. Further, the connotation of a term consists of the essential attributes of the class the definition should focus on essential features shared by all and only the members the class. The things to which a term applies may share many distinctive properties. But all these properties do not indicate the true nature of the term. The definition of

"human beings" as "featherless bipeds" is not a good definition even if it picks out the right individuals. Violation of this rule leads to the fallacy of incomplete or over complete definition. 2. The denotation of the definiendum and the definiens should be identical. This rule states that the definition of a term should capture the correct denotation of the term. A good definition will apply exactly to the same things as the term being defined, no more and no less. When this rule is violated we have a fallacy of either too broad or too narrow definition. For instance, the definition of "bird" as "warm-blooded animal" will be too broad, since it would include not only birds but also horses, cattle and dogs as well. On the other hand, the definition of "bird" as "feathered egg-laying animal" will be too narrow, since it would exclude male birds. So a good connotative definition must be satisfied by all and only those things that are included in the denotation of the term they define. 3. A definition should not be circular. A definition is circular if the definiendum turns up in the definiens. A circular definition uses the term being defined as part of its own definition. Since the purpose of a definition is to explain the meaning of a term or to make its meaning clear, this purpose is defeated if the term is included in the definition. Someone who does not understand the term will not be benefited by such a definition. "A cordless phone is a telephone that has no cord", "Man is human", "Circles are circular in shape" are examples of circular definition. 4. A definition should not be expressed in ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language. While defining a term one should avoid figurative and obscure language. The aim of definition is to explain the meaning of a term to someone who is unfamiliar with its proper application. So the use of ambiguous, obscure, or figurative language will not help such a person learn how to apply the term. Thus, "happiness is a warm puppy" is a good poetic metaphor, but as a definition it will be useless. 5. A definition should not be negative where it can be affirmative. A definition should state what a term means rather than what it does not mean. A good definition should use positive designations whenever it is possible to do so. The difficulty with negative definition is that there are too many things a term does not signify. For example, a table is not a chair, not a sofa, not a bed, not a house and so on and so forth. Similarly defining "triangle" as "a figure which is not a circle" is a negative definition. It is not possible to explain the application of a term by identifying some of the things to which it does not apply in a few instances, however, this may be the only way to go. A proper definition of the mathematical term "infinite" might well be negative. Terms having negative content, such as 'blind' or 'opaque', are to be defined negatively. But in ordinary circumstances, it is advisable to offer positive definitions.