|
|
|
|
|
|
by silverbax88
5522 days ago
|
|
|
Yes, I disagree. Because what you are describing is what's known as 'informal logic'. If I can convince someone that something is true, such as "red is equal to blue", even when it isn't, then it allows an entire logical argument to be built on that falsehood. The argument may be perfectly sound as long as everyone agrees with the original falsehood. If I say 'red is equal to blue' and you agree, then I can follow up and say, 'bulls must, therefore, get angry when they see the color blue'. This is a silly example but it's commonly used in politics and newspapers daily. I might accept that an author could redefine a word temporarily, in some instances of fiction; however, never in a technical or nonfiction work could this be considered acceptable or even credible. |
|
|
From my perspective it seems you are being overly rigid when you are complaining about the usage of the word 'dishonest'. And I don't find your example useful because I believe it's triviality ignores what makes arguing over the definition of a word difficult in the first place.
Plus, from my perspective, I'd have no problem with the statement "bulls must, therefore, get angry when they see the color blue" if "blue" was previously redefined as meaning "red".